Search for: "State v. Knight" Results 121 - 140 of 1,235
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Apr 2016, 5:30 am by Daniel E. Cummins
In a recent decision out of the Federal Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania in the case of DeJesus v. [read post]
7 Aug 2019, 7:02 am by scanner1
Fowler DA 17-0511 2019 MT 185N Criminal – Dangerous Drugs Knights of Columbus v. [read post]
25 Oct 2016, 4:04 pm by INFORRM
To come back to the IPT, it applies the rulings in the judgement by the European Court of Human Right in Weber & Saravia v Germany [2008] and Kennedy v United Kingdom [2011] to solve issues 2 and 3 (Mention is also made of R E v United Kingdom [2016] and Szabo & Vissy v Hungary). [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 8:28 am by Ralph L. Jacobson
California’s “primary assumption of the risk” doctrine was first set forth in Knight v. [read post]
30 Oct 2016, 5:23 am by INFORRM
Scarlet v Sabam decided in 2011 is limited to situations in which the data controller is the Internet Service Provider (ISP) itself. [read post]
2 Apr 2017, 9:05 pm by Walter Olson
Bouaphakeo (and more); Steven Calabresi on originalism and liberty; Steven Eagle on wetlands law; Harvey Silverglate and Emma Quinn-Judge on McDonnell and honest-services-fraud prosecutions of state and local officials; and Glenn Reynolds looking ahead to this (2016-17) term; Federal agency can’t unilaterally rewrite unambiguous statutory provision [Ilya Shapiro and Frank Garrison on Cato certiorari amicus in FLSA tip-pooling case of National Restaurant Association v. [read post]
8 Jul 2019, 12:24 pm by Kevin
For a much dumber dispute involving a much older fraternal group, see “Knights Templar v. [read post]
16 Sep 2021, 11:07 am by INFORRM
Knight v CIA No. 20-5045- Did U.S. intelligence have advance knowledge of a credible threat to Saudi journalist and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, whose murder was—to a high degree of confidence—ordered by the Saudi Crown Prince? [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 3:37 pm by Viking
CAAF decided United States v. [read post]